There is no denying that healthcare today is a mess. With all the regulations, mandates and litigation CYA going on, there’s little wonder why costs are skyrocketing. But is “Universal Healthcare” the answer? Is it even AN answer?

Today’s health insurance industry bears little resemblance to the “Major Medical” that I grew up with! Once upon a time, health insurance covered “MAJOR MEDICAL” expenses… Surgery. Hospitalization. And it was affordable. Today we have come to expect first dollar coverage for a doc visit for our kid’s sniffles!

To understand the problem, we must examine WHAT IS INSURANCE?

Insurance is a system whereby the risks and costs are spread across the pool of the insured. Premiums are underwritten, according to representative risk, such that the sum total of premiums collected will exceed the sum total of benefits paid out against the risk claims.

This works well in such environments as automobile or homeowners insurance, as the risk of a loss is low enough that the majority of policyholders do not make substantial claims – so the pool of premium moneys collected is well able to cover the costs of the claims made – and still provide a profit to the underwriter. The policyholder pays the premium for the security in knowing that, should a loss occur, there is coverage. But he hopes never to need it… and the underwriter hopes so too!

Health insurance also once worked under this model. The risk of MAJOR medical expense was considered remote enough to offer an underwriting opportunity for profit. Insurance companies rated an individual’s risk based on his health conditions and assessed a premium based on the underwriter’s assessment of risk. And some who were deemed too risky and were not offered coverage. This kept premiums reasonable as the risks were minimized.

Over the years, however, the government got involved in health insurance – mandating coverage for more high-risk people; mandating coverage for previously excluded conditions etc. Also employers began offering health insurance as an employment benefit. Costs were initially contained because “group” policies enlarged the pool of the insured. But soon there was demand for more services to be covered. Office visits. Prescriptions. Claim benefit costs began to rise, and so did premiums.

Thanks to greater and greater pressures from Government, the “Health Management Organization” or HMO was born. Suddenly “managed care” came on the scene – as an attempt to keep claims costs down and keep premiums in line. But, predictably, beneficiaries balked at having their healthcare choices limited by the evil HMO. They wanted to see WHO they wanted, WHEN they wanted. They wanted the CARE they wanted in the WAY they wanted. But they wanted the insurance companies to pay for it.

This is where the insurance model for healthcare began to break down. If EVERYONE is claiming benefits, then the cost of services to EVERYONE must be paid by EVERYONE… which means that there are no premium payers who are not claiming benefits. There is no pool of premiums being collected from which to pay out the larger claims! The very premise of insurance – the spreading of risk across the pool of insured is violated if there is a certainty of claim for all the insured!

So now, those dangerous words… “I’m from the government and I’m here to help”.

The proposal of Single-Payer Universal Healthcare from the government is seen by some utopian pie-in-the-sky Liberals as the panacea for all healthcare ills. But it is doomed from the start!

The only way to pay for universal care is to collect the entire cost of all healthcare from the pool of the covered… ie every one of us!

Now, we all know that the government is highly inefficient… it takes them $3 to effectively spend $1.

Given that currently healthcare represents between 15 and 20% of our entire economy – that means that the government will have to receive in taxes about 50% of our entire gross domestic product in order to meet current levels of healthcare spending.

And what of the quality of care? I pose one question: Given a choice, would you prefer a private hospital or a VA hospital?

Do you trust the Government to administer your healthcare? The same government which has bankrupted Social Security and Medicare? What evidence do you have that they can keep such a program afloat, let alone run it efficiently and equitably?

No, for all its faults and foibles, I’ll continue to rely on the free-enterprise system for my health needs – even with its excessive costs. I will make my own choices about when to see whom and for what. I will make my own cost-containment choices. And I will pray for the defeat of any politician who would try to take my choices from me.

I never thought I’d ever utter or write these words, but “Bravo, Hillary Clinton!”

Senator Clinton’s debate performance in Philadelphia was her best piece of work of the campaign. She nicely sliced and diced Obama and served him up with a side of rice! So many clips can be culled from the debate for use as a McCain campaign ad against Senator Obama, that the RNC owes Hillary a consulting fee!

(For that matter, she also let a few lines pass her lips which could be used by McCain if, by some turn of events, Senator Clinton winds up with the Democratic nomination! A double gift. Her reference to her own “baggage” and her “embarrassment” over the sniper snafu are gems that also can pepper McCain campaign ads. But I digress!)

Hillary’s greatest contribution from this debate, to my mind, was her correctly redirecting the emphasis of the Wright controversy AWAY from the inflammatory statements of Wright, and onto Obama’s underlying core beliefs and philosophies! This has long been my frustration with the discussion in the conservative press concerning Pastor Wright. By focusing on the outrageous statements themselves, the forest is lost for the incessant examination of the trees!

As we should have learned from the Clinton presidency, character DOES matter!

While there are those who defend Obama, stating that Obama should not be tainted with “guilt by association”, when you are running for the highest office in the most powerful nation in the free world, you must be prepared to endure and survive scrutiny under the heading, “You are known by the company you keep.” And the theme song for Senator Obama could well be “Bad Company”!

Regardless of the actual statements made by Rev Wright – one need only understand that the church is founded upon the Black Liberation Theology of James Cone, and holds as foundational tenets the divisive, racist, and Marxist doctrines of that movement!

In any church, one may occasionally find statements made by the pastor with which they may not agree. It would not raise an eyebrow to choose to overlook these statement and maintain membership in that church, if they find the preponderance of the teaching from the pulpit to be otherwise consistent with their core beliefs and the church’s statement of faith.

If, however, the statement of faith and core beliefs of the church are inconsistent with an individual’s core beliefs and world view… one would rightly expect that individual to seek another church! And conversely, it would not be unreasonable for one to question the credibility of one who remains in a church for 20 years, cites the pastor as “mentor” and “advisor” and who makes the bulk of his “charitable contributions” to that church, if he claims that his core beliefs are at odds with the stated and published core philosophy and foundational tenets of that church! If his core beliefs conflict with the foundation on which the church stands, why would he allow his kids to be baptized into it? Why would he refuse to “disown” the pastor in the face of outrageous statements which are CONSISTENT with the church’s foundational teachings? It is simply irrational!

In defense of Pastor Wright, the argument is made; “But we must consider the ‘good work’ the church has done.” Poppycock!! The same argument is used to defend Farrakhan, Hamas in Gaza, etc. Farrakhan’s support of black families and encouragement to succeed are used to defend his racist and antisemetic statements. Hamas’s “humanitarian” aid to the Palestinians of Gaza are used to defend their launching rockets into Israel. Even Hitler was praised for his improvement of the infrastructure in Germany! He made the trains run on time! (Never mind that they were making regularly scheduled stops at death camps!)

Barack Obama entered the race for the nomination having flown under the radar for most of his career in politics. He cast many “PRESENT” votes on issues of significance rather than taking a stand one way or another, which he might later have to explain or be held to account for. His campaign touted the bumper sticker slogan of “change”, appealing to the dissatisfaction with the status-quo… but offering little in the way of a clear outline of the “change” he expected to usher in. Obama was a charismatic character, a man of color, and he was a gifted orator. Most importantly, he presented as a blank page – with no “baggage” or “history” to DISlike. Like a movie screen, he simply allowed others to project their hopes, desires, frustrations and fears upon – and he simply reflected them. He wanted to run as “plain vanilla”! (Forgive the obvious but unintentional mixed metaphor!) But, as Kerry and Gore before him, there was no real depth. He was a better speaker than his predecessors, but still offered little more than a cardboard cut-out standing up as the “I’m not HIM” (or the “I’m not HER”) candidate!

But, thanks to the diligent investigating by some on the Right, the “real Obama” has begun to be unearthed and revealed. And thanks to Hillary’s tenacious clinging to her candidacy, and exploiting these unearthed associations, Obama’s true character is being revealed. The “reflectivity” of the Obama blank screen is being degraded as the screen begins to take on Barack’s own true colors.

Obama’s character and judgement are being scrutinized. His associations, statements and actions are disconcerting, as they are surprisingly coherent and thematic! His “mentor” is a Black Liberation Theologist who Damns America. He is “close” with a former Weather Underground Terrorist who declared war on the US and regrets that his bombings didn’t go far enough. He refused to salute the flag, or to wear one. He has ties with other “pastors” of questionable character. He has unsavory relationships like Rezko. He makes “elitist” statements about “bitter” folk in the heartland.

A recent caller to Crane Durham, who was guest hosting the Randy Tobler radio talk show, made a very astute observation:

“Hillary Clinton’s troubles come when she lies. But Obama’s troubles start when he tells the truth!” He elaborated by pointing out that when Obama speaks off the cuff and reveals what he REALLY thinks – we get a glimpse into who he really is… and maybe he’s not someone we like very much.

I first published an article on this subject in April 2006 – two years ago… but with some minor updates it is still as true today as it was then – and to my mind, it bears repeating!So here goes:

There is no denying the pain felt at the pump as gas break thru the $3.00 per Gallon mark. The life blood of this nation IS oil, whether we like or acknowledge it or not. So when gas prices rise there is a predictable rush to blame someone. Democrats are quick to blame the oil companies for "gouging" or for “obscene profiteering”.Are they right? Sensing blood in the water, the Dems are ready to levy new punitive and confiscatory taxes on the oil companies. Have they considered the "Law of Unintended Consequences'? A "Windfall Profit Tax" to punish the oil companies for making a profit? Let's look a bit closer.

Yes, the oil companies operate in a world of big numbers. Their profits are in the billions. But is this obscene? Think of the trillions of gallons of oil our nation consumes (not to mention the burgeoning demand of other nations). They are meeting an incredible demand, and doing so with a profit to costs ratio in the 9 to 10% range. Few businesses can operate at all on that small a margin. It's hardly an obscene rate of return.

And who gets those profits? The shareholders do. How many shares are in circulation?? I wouldn't dare speculate… but can you name a single mutual fund out there that doesn't have SOME of it's assets in oil? Do you have a 401K or IRA? YOU are probably an oil profiteer!

What would happen to the economy if suddenly the value of every mutual fund in America were to have to absorb the impact of confiscatory taxes on the oil companies?? The Law of Unintended Consequences!

The oil companies bear the costs of purchasing all that oil – much of if from less than friendly sources abroad, transporting it halfway around the world, refining it, meeting governmental regulations for upwards of 25 different custom blended formulations of gasoline – not to mention motor oil, home heating oil, kerosene and other petrochemicals, and the demands of the plastics industry. They must then transport and distribute these products around the country. Getting crude oil out of the ground in Saudi Arabia – turning it into a legal-to-sell-in-Podunk blend of gasoline – and then getting to the Podunk Gas-n-Wash on Main Street is not exactly an inexpensive proposition.

Some Democrats have even proposed a NEW ADDITIONAL $.50 per gallon gas tax!Can you imagine the economic impact of that “giant sucking sound” of our dollars?

It seems to me that the oil companies ARE INDEED holding the line on gas prices in some measure. Think about this:When oil was $20 a barrel, we were quite accustomed to gasoline around $1 a gallon. Why then wouldn't gasoline break thru the $3 a gallon mark by the time the cost of crude went over $65? But oil is now over $100 a barrel, and the average pump price nationwide is just breaking the $3 mark. Am I the only one who recognizes there is some level of restraint built in there? Do the math!The cost of crude has gone up 5 times since we saw dollar-a-gallon gas, yet we're just now surpassing $3 at the pump. And while sudden oil price rises make news, several times in the last year there were precipitous drops in the price – which, while temporary (all pricing in this market is temporary!) these drops received little press.

So who CAN we blame for our pump-pain? There is plenty of blame to go around.

Did you realize that for every gallon sold, more money goes to the Federal, State and Local Tax coffers than to the bottom line of the oil companies? Who is the big bad oil profiteer? Who’s “gouging” and reaping a “windfall”?While the government profits MORE than the oil companies, they don't have to find, buy, transport, refine, or distribute anything. And they don’t just place direct taxes on the gas. They also tax the company's profits. Blame government taxes.India, China, Korea and other nations have finally moved into the 21st century. As their infrastructure grows and their economies expand, their demand for oil increases. OPEC no longer feels any pressure to keep prices in line, as we are hardly their only or even their biggest market anymore! If WE drop our consumption – they'll just sell more to other nations who are happy to pay the price. Europe has been paying over $4.00/gallon for years. We have enjoyed prices artificially lower than the market price in the rest of the world for a long time. As the world's economies become increasingly global, what makes us think we can continue to get discount prices when other markets pay full price? Blame the emerging nations!

Did you know that government regulations on gasoline formulations require the oil companies to create numerous custom blends that can only be sold in specific regions? The companies must predict the demand in each of these markets so their refineries can produce one blend for just so long, and then retool to produce another. If they miscalculate, there will be a glut in one area and a shortage in another. A glut for one regional blend cannot be tapped to meet a shortage in another, because the formulations may not be sold across regions. So instead the price drops in the region with the glut, and rises in the region of the shortage. Then the people in the shortage area will note their price is higher than perhaps their neighboring state… and they begin to cry "Gouging!" Blame the environmentalists who pushed for the boutique blends regulations.

We have not built a new refinery since the Carter Administration, yet for a variety of reasons several have come off line in that time. With reduced refining capacity, the burdens of boutique formulations, and environmental regulations – even if we have adequate crude supplies, heavy demand outstrips the capacity to turn that crude into marketable products. Blame the environmentalists who won't let us build refineries!

Our dependence on foreign sources of crude makes us beholden to the pricing whims of nations not always friendly to our interests. Where is the oil we import coming from? We import our oil from the Islamic nations of the Middle East, along with Venezuela and Mexico primarily. Not exactly our blood-brother allies. On the other hand, environmental groups quash every attempt to develop our domestic reserves. Alaska? Florida? California? There's plenty of oil to extract, but the environmentalists won't let us drill. Once we pay the price at the foreign well-head we still have to transport all this crude halfway around the world on Diesel Burning ships! Very eco-friendly!

The environmentalists complain that drilling in ANWR might disturb some native caribou, yet one square mile of tundra looks like another… they can walk a mile away, and not even see a drilling rig! These Eco-Nuts worry about the possibility of pipeline spills – yet existing pipelines have excellent records in that regard. If a spill should occur, it is always of limited scope as turning a valve upstream from a rupture cuts the flow. On the other hand, floating billions of barrels of crude across the oceans in tankers isn't exactly without risk. The possibility of dropping the entire load of a tanker is absolutely frightening. Of course, a wreck of the magnitude of the Exxon Valdez is rare – but ships can and do get into trouble on the high seas. And what is the first line of defense a ship's captain has against foundering in angry weather? Yes, lightening the ship by jettisoning cargo! Now THERE is an environmentally friendly thought! Blame the environmentalists who won't let us drill for our own resources!

As in ANY commodity trading, uncertainty and instability raise prices. The current fears regarding Iran's activities and other Mideast turmoil certainly casts doubts and uncertainties on the markets. This drives up prices. Blame the jihadists who can't coexist with anyone else in this world!

Oil is a worldwide commodity, with worldwide influences on its price. There is no single culprit in the rising price of oil.Blaming the oil companies themselves is myopic, and punishing them is counterproductive.

We MUST develop our own domestic sources – environmentalists notwithstanding. We must reduce our dependency on foreign sources of oil. We must build new refineries. We must reduce consumption. We must encourage alternative fuels. We must remove the disincentives to explore for new oil deposits.

The machine that is the United States runs on gas, and is lubricated with oil. The oil companies are very efficient at delivering those commodities to us despite numerous obstacles as listed above. But putting more obstacles in their way is not going to get more oil here, and won't make it any cheaper.